tv Piers Morgan Tonight CNN February 27, 2012 3:00am-4:00am EST
ron paul is not going to be your next president. >> ron paul! >> so why are millions of young people hanging on every word from this 76-year-old texas congressman? >> i think the federal war on drugs is a total failure. i think the patriot act is unpatriotic, because it undermines our liberty. >> and why is the gop so afraid of him. >> allowing the people to make their decisions and not get the government involved. >> tonight, ron paul, one on one, no-holds-barred. >> i'm willing to challenge any of these gentleman up here to a 25-mile bike ride any day, in the heat of texas. >> how he's already changing the face of the republican party. >> if you have an irate minority, you do very well in the caucus state. >> ron paul answers my questions
and your questions from twitter tonight. the piers morgan interview starts now. good evening. tonight the piers morgan interview comes to you from las vegas. i'm at planet hollywood to talk to candidate ron paul. welcome. >> thank you. >> this will sound likeshame less name dropping, but the last time i dined in this restaurant was with sylvester stallone, and the parallel to me is clear. you are the rocky balboa of this campaign. how do you feel about that analogy? >> i have no idea how to respond to that. i hope that's very positive. it sounds like it could be positive. >> what i mean is americans love an underdog. and you remain an underdog, despite this continual, extraordinary support of young people. people still perceive you as an underdog. do you believe like rocky balboa that you could surprise everybody and actually win this race? do you genuinely believe you could become the nominee? >> yeah.
obviously, so. and i think the record of this campaign, you know, the republican campaign these last almost 12 months now shows you that a lot of the accompanieds are coming and going. you know, they come in, they peak out, and all of a sudden they're gone. and we did have nine. we're down to four right now. the one characteristic of our campaign is its steady growth. and i saw a little clip the other day on the internet that says, once you become a ron paul supporter, you remain a ron paul supporter. >> and understand you have a ron paul principle, your supporters say, you stick to that principle. and that is certainly a great plus, i think. you look at someone like mitt romney, everybody knows, he changes his minds about lots of issues. i suppose what i would say to you about that is it can be a stick to beat you, in the sense that if you never change your mind about anything, is that, in itself, healthy? >> teem and history helps change your views. i've changed and modified my views on what i think about the death penalty.
so it's not overly rigid, but i see it as refinement and growth in developing a philosophy that is a defense of liberty. the concept of liberty has been around in bits and pieces for thousands of years and of course we've had a grand experiment here. and i'm motivated by the fact that i would hate to see it lost and i would like to refine it, pick up the pieces where we left off a while ago and actually improve upon what we've had in the past. >> you are the oldest candidate, and you have been, even when there were nine candidates, yet the one that many say has the most energy, and you have the biggest youth following. what do you put this down to? a, where do you get all this energy from? >> well, you know, i don't know exactly. you know, where does our health come from? there's a lot of things. mental health is important. >> do you have a regime on the campaign? >> yes, and it gets interrupted sometimes on the campaign. i can't quite do it.
but historically for 30 or 40 years, however long i can remember, i've had a pretty strict regime and it involves a lot of exercise and also eating habits are very important. >> so what do you do, exercise wise, when you have time? >> okay, when i have time, i would get up in the morning and i want to get outside. i'm sort of -- outside gives me relaxation. soy so i don't want to ride an a bike. and it sort of clears my head. and loosens me up in good health habits. i think can prevent usage of a lot of medications. so i strive for that, but i think my parents might have had a little bit to do with good health. >> what about diet? what do you do for eating and drinking? >> i'm not overly fanatic, with but i watch the white things,
the white sugars and although i do eat meat, i think fish is better. but it's not overly radical. but i think fresh vegetables are good. so most of it is probably more common sense than anything i learned in medical school. >> well, you look good. do you think this is part of the reason why the youth are energized by you? they like the fact that you are this guy that sticks to his principles? >> i think that is it, and i think sometimes, they will translate that in, he sticks to his principles about health habits. but i think it's the principles of liberties that are so inviting to young people. i think their minds are more open. i don't think their minds have been cluttered. i don't think they've been forced to accept things and accept the status quo. we live in enera today where the failure of government programs is so blatant. and although i've been doing this for a long time within and we have had a lot of interests in the last five to ten years, it really came to life once the financial crisis, which many of
us who have been involved in economics predicted would come, and sort of confirmed it, and people were very uneasy about the future, whether it's here in europe and we're all interconnected now with global trade and global banking. so i think that has, you know, energized the people, because i've been talking differently and warning about these things. >> does it help, also, that you were a child of the great depression. you know, you grew up through the depression and came out the other end. and you saw what it took, with i think, to do that. i was fascinated to read the sure volume of jobs that you did when you were a young man. you did all sorts of stuff. you worked with your father on the dairy, but you did countless jobs. you worked very, very hard. do you see that kind of hard work ethic now in america? and if the answer is no, is that one of the fundamental problems, that that work ethic has einvolved over the years? >> that's a big issue. people ask me hobbit my parents
might have had influence on politics. well, they were conservative republicans, but they were more republicans than anything else. but i think where they contributed a lot to my thinking was, it was work ethic. the depression and world war ii. the depression didn't end until after world war ii, because i remember world war ii better than the depression, and actually things got worse, because there was rationing and there were no new cars and all. so the work ethic was very, very important. and i think that had a large impact on me. at the same time, i worked that into a philosophy. but i think -- and i talk a lot about it at my speeches, especially on the college campuses, of not depending on the government, they're not there, they're bankrupt. they try to give everybody a free house and now they don't have jobs and they don't have their houses. >> although i agree with you to a certain degree, i think i take issue when it comes to health care. where you have quite provocative views here. your belief, basically, is is if
you can't afford the insurance for medicare or whatever it may be, that you've got to fend for yourself somehow or get your local community to bail you out. am i misrepresenting you or is that basically how you feel? >> yeah, but it's a lot more compassionate than the way it may sound. >> is it, though? >> yeah. because if you see the extent of total socialism, it's not very compassionate. people end up with no care at all. i mean, what happened at the end of the soviet system? everybody had free care, but there was no soviet system. they were totally bankrupt, because they had an empire that failed. and today nobody -- we've had -- i was in medicine when we had no government. and i don't remember the problems as badly as i remember the problems now. >> but what about the -- as we have in britain -- the basic right to health care for every citizen. what is wrong with that as a principle, an ambition to aspire to? >> i think the basic principle is wrong in that you don't have a right to somebody else's life or money.
you have a right to your life and you have a right to your liberty and you have a right to keep what you earn. but you don't have a right to take food from somebody else. and you say, well, i'm not going to take it, the government's going to take the food. you don't have a right to somebody else's house, oh, yes, but the government will get the house for me. we who believe in the freedom philosophy believe that you can't use violence to get what you want, but you can't get the government to use violence and force. >> what if you don't have the ability to get your own health care. you have no means to do that. what do the people who mitt romney was dismissive of the other day, and we'll come to that, what do those people do, the most vulnerable parts of society. what do they do? under your presidency, what would they do to get health care? >> you have to understand the difference between an interventionist economy and a socialist economy. if you really want to produce the best medical care and the best prosperity, the largest middle class, you have to do it through freedom. if you do it through
redistribution of wealth, you actually reduce the availability. >> let's take a little break. i want to come back and talk to you more about the economy, and also, how you keep america great through tough times like this and what you think of today's jobless figures, which whatever way you look at it, are pretty good news for barack obama. online dating services can get kind of expensive. so to save-money, i found a new way to get my profile out there. check me out.
everybody says i've got a friendly disposition and they love my spinach dip. 5 foot ten. still doing a little exploring... on it. my sign is sagittarius, i'm into spanish cheese, my hairline is receding but i'm getting a weave. (falsetto chorus) getting weave. who wants some ronald tonight!? geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. i like yoplait. it is yoplait. but you said it was greek. mmhmm. so is it greek or is it yoplait? exactly. okay... [ female announcer ] yoplait. it is so greek. ask me. [ male announcer ] if you think even the best bed can only lie there... ask me what it's like when my tempurpedic moves? [ male announcer ] ...talk to someone who owns an adjustable version
of the most highly recommended bed in america. ask me about my tempur advanced ergo. ask me about having all the right moves. [ male announcer ] these are real tempur advanced ergo owners. find one for yourself. try your friends on facebook. see what they have to say unedited. ask me what it's like to get a massage anytime you want. [ male announcer ] tempur-pedic brand owners are more satisfied than owners of any traditional mattress brand. [ woman ] ask me why i'm glad i didn't wait till i'm too old to enjoy this. [ male announcer ] start asking real owners. treat yourself to the ultimate sleep experience and save up to $200 during the tempur ergo savings event. plus visit tempurpedic.com for full details on our five day, five year special financing offer. don't wait. the tempur ergo savings event and five year special financing ends february 26th. tempur-pedic. the most highly recomended bed in america.
>> that was a campaign ad for ron paul. it's probably completely opposite how barack obama's doing something. yet we saw jobless figures, which are the best since he became president. do you give him credit for that? do you think he's doing a good job in reducing the jobless figures? or how would you summarize your feelings? >> i wouldn't give him too much credit. of course, everybody should be pleased that there are more jobs now than there were a month ago. but they're pretty puny to what we should be doing. but if you look at those figures
and dissect them out, they're not all that glamorous. because your net last month, 1.2 million people dropped out of the workforce. so if you get 200,000 new jobs and 1.2 dropped out, you still lost a million jobs. so if you take that into consideration, you can't turn these people into nonpeople. you can't fudge the figures. and that's what politicians do. >> i understand -- >> let me finish that. if you do that, actually, the unemployment rate is 11%, not 8.5. it went up, not gone down, if you count -- >> is there a problem here, if all the republicans keep dumping on what are apparently good figures, then the momentum, the positivity that america needs to get itself out of recession gets stymied a bit. i'll read you a quote here -- >> can i answer that? >> let me just read you this quo. this is from jeb hensarling, a republican representative. he said, today is an indication of another failure of this president's policies. 36 months in a row with 8% plus unemployment, which is a ludicrous way of spinning it.
hocan you say, this is another example of a president getting things wrong on a day when, actually, the official figures, no matter how you dress them up, are positive. isn't the better thing, i suppose the more credible position for republicans to say is, i am encouraged by this, but he should have gone further? >> to me, it's more important that you admit the truth. so if i'm speaking the truth, so we might have to compare figures, but let's assume for a sec that i'm speaking the truth and the 200,000 new jobs was a net benefit. but what i'm saying is we quit counting people, we disavowed them. if i'm speaking the truth, the most important thing is we know the truth. as a matter of fact, you'll probably have a hard time -- you probably haven't heard me in a speech. i do talk about the president a little bit, mainly on attack on civil liberties and maybe not doing enough about the wars. so i'm not in that same people to say, well, the president didn't do enough, it's all the president's fault, because it isn't. he hasn't done anything to come
in my direction of going back to a market economy or looking at the balancing the budget, republicans or democrats don't want to cut anything. >> what about mitt romney's comment about he's not concerned about the poor. let's just play this and then i'll get your reaction. >> i'm in this race because i care about americans. i'm not concerned about the very poor. we have a safety net there. if it needs repair, we'll fix it. >> it was a misstatement. i misspoke. i've said something that is similar to that, but quite acceptable for a long time. and when you do i don't know how many thousands of interviews, now and then you may get it wrong, and i misspoke. >> he says now it's a misstatement, but he didn't say that immediately. and it just sounded awful, that, didn't it? for somebody to be aiming to be president to talk about the poor in that way, it seemed callus. >> i don't have probably any agreements with mitt on policies. foreign policy, monetary policy, spending policy, bailout policy. but, you know, i think there was a big issue because of politics,
because of the opposition, the demagoguing, the media jumping on this. and actually, i think i ended up defending him more than he defended himself. because i don't believe for a minute that if mitt romney was sitting here, that if he released everything in his heart, and he said, you know what, the truth is, i really don't care about poor people, but that isn't -- i don't believe that. >> what he did say unequivocally is that they wouldn't be a priority. i found that extraordinary. if i was president, which i would never be, because i'm british, the poor would be my absolute priority. would they be yours? >> if that is your number one priority, if you listen to what i've been talking about and understood free market economics, you would say the most important thing you can do is give them a sound currency, limited government, free markets, contract rights, don't bail out anybody, no privilege classes, and that's when the poor would get the benefits. that's when the jobs would come. but this whole fallacy of saying
that we have to -- see, i'm concerned about the poor more than anybody, or as much as anybody, but i don't think robbing one group and giving more money to the poor and saying, well, you can have your house, just pay the bills, but he can't do it. so it's a failed policy. it's good intention, but the good intentions don't solve our problems. >> when you have someone like warren buffett, one of the richest, most successful men in history, begging to be taxed more. publicly saying, tax me, tax me. give me money to those who don't have it, what is wrong with that? >> well, let him pay. remember going around -- >> what is wrong with having a tax system which just taxes people like him more? >> well, it destroys the economy if you just -- >> it doesn't. >> let him pay. >> there is little evidence that raising taxation for the very rich ever destroys an economy. it doesn't. >> well, that i disagree with. >> historically, it hasn't. >> i disagree, because government, what are they going
to do with the money? are they going to subsidize the housing industry again and have that thing blow up -- are they going to start another war? that's why they need the money. >> the problem with the housing industry wasn't that poor people got housing. it was that greedy bankers and financial institutions brought in the subprime mortgage scams, which preyed on people who didn't understand the system. that's what happened. >> but where would the speculation come from if you donate have easy credit? where'd the money come from? -- from savings, they wouldn't have done it. >> i agree with personal responsibility. all the middle classes that people are rushing to support, i think overmaxed their credit cards, spent money they didn't have, and are trying to absolve themselves, in many cases, from personal responsibility. but i come back to this. when mitt romney said what he said about, i'm not concerned with the poor, i really felt offended, for everybody in america. i was like, you've got to have a president -- >> i think -- >> you've got to have a president who prioritizes the poor, haven't you? >> now, if i'd have been
confronted with that, the answer would have been different. but the answer would have been different than your answer. you'd want more government and more spending. i would have said, that is my deep concern. if you are a true humanitarian, if you care about the poor people, and if you care about not shrinking the middle class, like's going on right now, we're getting more poor shrinking of the middle class, you cannot do it without looking at the monetary policy. if you don't do anything, exclude everything else, but you just depreciate the currency, the middle class gets wiped out. if you're on the receiving end, the banks, the corporations, they get tremendous benefit. the wealth is automatically transferred from the middle class, the poor get poorer, and the wealthy get wealthier. then when the bailouts come, they even benefit more in the bad debt, which should have been liquidated, is dumped on the people. >> the flip side of the bailout argument is when you look at the car industry, barack obama did bailout the car industry, and now they're doing very well. so bailouts can work, indisputably.
>> well, you're making an assumption it wouldn't have worked with honest bailouts. it's an honest bailout. >> you don't know, it's chicken and the egg, isn't it? >> no, it isn't. if you had an honest bail, the people who own those bonds would have been protected. but he turned the ownership over to the unions. that's not fair. he used force to transfer -- he was wrong to break the contracts. governments are there to enforce contracts, not to adjust the contracts for the benefit of their political constituency. >> even if it works? >> especially if it works. if a criminal robs a bank and it works, you don't justify it by the robbing of the bank. >> let's take a break, come back and talk foreign policy, and specifically the threat of war with iran. i'm a marathon runner, in absolute perfect physical condition and i had a heart attack right out of the clear blue... he was just... "get me an aspirin"... yeah... i knew that i was doing the right thing, when i gave him the bayer.
i'm on an aspirin regimen... and i take bayer chewables. [ male announcer ] aspirin is not appropriate for everyone so be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. so he's a success story... [ laughs ] he's my success story. [ male announcer ] learn how to protect your heart at i am proheart on facebook. lord of the carry-on. sovereign of the security line. you never take an upgrade for granted. and you rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle. and go. you can even take a full-size or above. and still pay the mid-size price. i deserve this. [ male announcer ] you do, business pro. you do. go national. go like a pro. nyqui tylenol: me, too. and cougnasal congestion.ers?ou do. nyquil:what? tissue box (whispering): he said nasal congestion... nyquil: i heard him. anncr vo: tylenol cold multi-symptom nighttime relieves nasal congestion... nyquil cold & flu doesn't.
i was 18 years old before i had my first fresh bun. the invention that i came up with is the hot dog ez bun steamer. steam is the key to a great hot dog. i knew it was going to be a success. the invention was so simple that i knew i needed to protect it. my name is chris schutte and i got my patent, trademark and llc on legalzoom. [ shapiro ] we created legalzoom to help people start their business and launch their dreams. go to legalzoom today and make your business dream a reality. at legalzoom.com, we put the law on your side. and who ordered the yummy cereal? yummy. [ woman ] lower cholesterol. [ man 2 ] yummy. i got that wrong didn't i? [ male announcer ] want great taste and whole grain oats that can help lower cholesterol? honey nut cheerios. can you get me out of it? of course. travelocity? that's amazing! but i'm still stuck. come on man, dig it! [ female announcer ] travelocity. get great deals on all kinds
back now with my special guest, ron paul. let me ask you this. you've lived through many american military conflicts in your lifetime, since the early part of last century. how many of them do you believe were justified? >> well, justified plus legal. >> well, people assume you're a pacifist. i don't get the feeling that you are a pacifist. >> no, i'm not a pacifist. >> you believe in military action where it is legitimate. but how many do you think of the major conflicts have been legitimate? >> from a strict constitutional viewpoint, i don't want to fight any wars that aren't declared. that means since world war ii,
nothing has been justified, because we didn't go through the proper process. >> didn't you support the conflict in afghanistan? >> i did, but that said to go after only those individuals responsible for 9/11, not to go into nation building, not going into, you know, iraq. >> it was war, wasn't it? >> to go after al qaeda, it was going lake going after criminals. as a matter of fact, at the time, what i did -- >> was it constitutional? >> yes, to a degree, because it was limited. but what i introduced was a resolution to clarify this. don't turn it into an excuse to go into a country and go into nation building. i said, look to our history about the letter of mark and reprisal. when your attacks say pearl harbor declared war, that's certainly legitimate. even though we had a declaration of war in world war i, it was a constitutional war, but it was a very foolish adventure. >> what is the ideological difference between being attacked in pearl harbor and being attacked at the world trade center.
>> but a country didn't attack, i mean, a bunch of thugs attacked us, not a country. so there's a big difference. there were probably -- the people -- i imagine there weren't even 100 people that knew 9/11 was coming. maybe there were 50. maybe there were 40, for all we know. so it was a band of thugs that had a grievance with us, and they were trying to get our attention. that's entirely different than -- >> have you modified your opinion of what the motivation was? and the reason i ask, you got a lot of flak at the time, although a lot of support as well, for suggesting that the main motivation for the attacks was revenge for what had been going on in iraq. and i'm sure a lot of it was. but you also said that you didn't believe that it was an anti-west sentiment. an anti-riches, an anti-capitalism. i'm not sure that's true, is it? certainly, if you were to interview the 9/11 attackers, i'm pretty damned sure they would also say, we are against western values. we are against capitalism and so on. >> well, there's no evidence to
that. if you read robert pape and michael sure, you'll fine out they're pretty much the experts on the subject, and that's not their conclusion. but if you look at the 9/11 commission, look at the dodd studies, look at the cia, even if you look at what paul wolfowitz has said, you know, the great neocon, they've come to the conclusion that our presence in the middle east was the most significant event on why they wanted to come here and kill us. >> let's assume you become president ron paul. if iran was to strike back at israel, what would you do? >> well, i'd go and look to the rules and the rules are that if our national security is threatened, you explain it to the people and then you go to the congress and say, is our national security threatened to such a degree that we declare war against a particular country? >> if you believe that iran had enough enriched uranium to genuinely launch a nuclear attack against israel, would that knowledge alone mean that you would countenance military
action? >> the one thing that we should set aside is our cia and the mossad, israel, not arguing that they have the case, and even israel said, the leader of the mossad said, even if they had a web, it's not an existential threat to them. >> so you wouldn't ever countenance any preemptive strike? >> no, why would i? that's aggression. we're not supposed to commit aggression. that's left to the dictators. but we now don't do aggression, but what we do is preemptive war. preemptive war is equivalent to that. >> but ahmadinejad has made it quite clear in wiping out israel, if he got the chance. if you were president in the second world war and you've been given knowledge the japanese were planning pearl harbor, you would have preemptively struck, wouldn't you? >> well, let me touch your first subject first. and that is quoting ahmadinejad, because that's a misquote, but 99% of the people in the media
would misquote it and everybody in washington believes it. what he actually said on the proper interpretation was that the regime in charge of jerusalem should be removed from the pages of time. he did not say that israel should be wiped from the face of the earth. just think of the difference on that, removing a regime, like getting rid of our administration or something. >> you're not seriously defending ahmadinejad, are you? >> i'm trying to defend honesty and openness and willingness to stop a war -- >> do you see him as a threat? >> please, with just like john kennedy was able to talk to khrushchev. if we could talk to khrushchev and he had 30,000 missiles, why can't we talk to a country that doesn't have a nuclear missile -- >> but a lot of americans who may like, they may like you personally or whatever, but they think you're weak on this, because of the preemptive issue. and i come back to that question i put to you. if you had knowledge and you were president when pearl harbor happened, you had pre-knowledge
of that happening, would you have attacked japan? >> an imminent attack, we're coming over and seeing the planes come over, obviously. >> but the intelligence it may happen. >> an imminent attack is quite different when the planes are coming versus this fiction. just, we shouldn't have such short memories. everything they're saying about iran, we said about iraq, and they were all lies. and how many men died? 8,500 americans died. 44,000 -- >> i agree with you about iraq. i, as a newspaper editor, as a newspaper editor back in britain, i opposed the war in iraq, vigorously and loudly for two years. >> then you should oppose us going into iran. >> i think iran is a different situation. >> why? >> because i think that they would, if they could, consider attacking israel. and if you're america, you can't let that happen. and the israelis are looking to america -- >> why shouldn't they depend on the british? why doesn't the british take care of them? they have a lot of influence. let all the british kids go over there and die.
why is it assumed that we are the policeman of the world? that it's our moral obligation. besides, we're broke. >> but aren't there times when you have to be the policeman of the world? >> no. >> really? >> it is not. we provide for our national security, we do not have the authority, we do not have the money, and we don't have the moral authority to do this, because it leads to trouble. >> let's take a break and come back and talk social issues. i want to talk to you about marriage, gay marriage, abortion, see what you really think. o0 c1 2 o0 [ beep ] [ man ] you have one new message. [ mom ] hi scooter. this is mommy. the progresso chicken noodle you made is so good. the vegetables are cut nice and thick... you were always good at cutting your vegetables. and it's got tender white-meat chicken... the way i always made it for you. oh, one more thing honey... those pj's you like, the ones with the feet, i bought you five new pairs. love you.
did you see the hockey game last night? [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. [siri] where are directions to santa cto santa cruz.a? where's the best bbq in kansas city? is there a rodeo in amarillo today? where are we? [siri] here's your current location. how big is the grand canyon? any gas stations we can walk to? [siri] i found 2 gas stations fairly close to you. what does orion look like? [siri] i found this for you.
i think ron paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent american. >> newt gingrich calling ron paul totally outside the mainstream. this is the man who wants a moon colony, mr. mainstream. let's talk social issues. because people often say you are a conservative liberal. and there aren't many of those around, ron paul. let me ask you about your view of gay marriage. because i've read differing twists on this. what is your honest opinion about gay marriage? >> i am totally neutral on the cause of liberty. when people want to be married and call it a marriage, it's none of my business. i don't want the government to even be involved in marriage -- >> but state by state now is legally endorsing. >> better than the national
government coming down and forcing the states to do certain things, either legalize it or prohibit it. >> but you're a practicing baptist and take your religion seriously, so seriously, unless i'm wrong, that you don't even travel with a woman on her own, is that right? >> a woman. you wouldn't travel alone with a woman. >> if it's out of context of what i consider normal. >> that's part of your religious beliefs and values. what do you think of gay marriage in terms of values? >> i'm not into the value judgment. i can -- i know my values. but i don't know other people's values. and that's what freedom -- freedom is all about permitting other people -- >> but what does your religious belief and personal value tell you about gay marriage? >> well, mine is that i personal think married to one woman is what is natural and good for me and it serves me well, and one of the reasons maybe i've been married for 55 years.
but i don't -- i believe i should set examples. i should teach my children certain ways, but i don't believe in the use of force, whether it's economic or social. i don't want to force people into accepting my values. that's what's so miraculous about freedom. is that i become more tolerant, more tolerant than some people think i should be. >> have you become more tolerant about this issue? >> oh, i became, you know, because of the politics of it all, i've been more forced to talk about it but most of my growing up, it was a nonissue. >> it wasn't so much a nonissue, as most people would have been opposed to it. what's changed in the last 20 years? >> i remember in high school and college, i don't remember having a single discussion or a classroom discussion or a political discussion ever on this issue. it's only been in the last ten years or so that this has come up. >> if you became president and you were asked directly, do you personally approve from a values perspective of gay marriage, what would you say? >> i would personally say to
each his own, and i approve it, because that's the way they want to run their life and i respect their freedoms and that's why freedom works, because it recognizes that what other people do the -- i don't recognize what others want to do, i can't have my freedom. my freedom depends on their freedom, so i can set my standards and then others can decide whether they want to follow me or not. but i would never use force. >> you don't believe in abortion under any circumstances. that's something, i think, driven by your time as a babies. you once delivered a 2 1/2 pound baby, that you had to put into a bucket. >> not me. i wasn't a participate. i was a very, very casual observer as a student -- >> but you witnessed this? >> yeah, walked in a room, it happened, it was five minutes, i walked out of the room and i was just like, what did i just see. >> it was that lack of respect for life. >> here's the dilemma. it's one i put to rick santorum very recently and i was
surprised by his answer, although i sort of understood from his belief point of view that he would come up with this. but it's a dilemma i'm going to put to you. you have two daughters, you have in granddaughters. if one of them was raped, and i accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen, but if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child, if they were impregnated? >> no, if it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. i would give them a shot of estrogen -- >> you would allow them to abort the baby? >> it is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical, you know, problem. if you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, i was raped and i'm seven months pregnant and i don't want to have anything to do with it, it's a little bit different story. but somebody arriving in an emergency saying, i have just
been raped, and there's no chemical, there's no medical, and there's no legal evidence of a pregnancy -- >> so life doesn't begin at conception? >> life does begin at conception -- >> then you'd be taking a life. >> well, you don't know if you're taking a life either, because this is an area that is -- but to decide everything about abortion respect for life on this one very, very theoretical condition where there may have been a life or not a life. >> but here's the thing, although it is a hypothetical, it does happen. people do get raped and they do get impregnated, and sometimes they're so ashamed by what's happened that weeks go by before they may even discover they're pregnant. and they have to face this dilemma, and they're going to have a president who has a very, very strong view about this. >> now, this is like the proposal that the people who like abortion endorse abortion, because it's a woman's right to
her body. and you say, does that mean one minute before birth you can kill the baby? i did this on one of the tv programs, where some women were opposed to what i was saying. it's a baby, she has the right, are you going to abort this woman because the woman has had some unfortunate circumstances so the doctor gets paid a handsome fee to kill this nine-pound baby. oh, that's not what we're talking about, but that's what they're talking about, they're talking about a human life. so a person immediately after rape, yes, it's a tough one, and i won't satisfy everybody there. but to tell you the truth, what i saw happening in the 1960s and the change in the law and -- the change in attitude, and people were doing illegal abortions. to me, it's a moral problem. it was to change the morality of the '60s, the lack of respect for life leads to the lack of respect for liberty, and all the things that i believe in. so it was a change in morality that had the supreme court change the law.
so i don't believe the that changing the law is the magic cure. i have -- i do believe, though, very sincerely, if we don't have an understanding of life and have a lot of respect for life, i can't defend people under personal liberties. i can't be as tolerant as i am on how they use their liberties. so that's why i think it's really a moral issue rather than a legal solution to all these problems. and as a physician, as a gynecologist, i've had to face some of these very, very difficult problems, and i understand it. and even before roe versus wade, many of those problems that existed, where there was no perfect answer, they were taken care of, but it was always done, they respected the fact that they were dealing with a life. >> finally on this point, do you accept there's a slight change between a candidate who says he's pro-liberty and says, no, you don't have choice. >> i see the nine-pound baby
that's still in the mother deserving some protection too, who deserves protection. that fetus has rights. because if i do harm to him, i get sued. if you have a car accident and kill a fetus, there are legal rights there. but to say that it's only the mother, it's very, very unique. if you carry your argument to the -- all the way through, we have a right to our homes. shouldn't we have the privacy of our homes? do we have a right to kill the baby one minute after birth? no. as a matter of fact, this is what happens. we can kill the baby before it's born and the doctor gets paid. one minute after birth, if the woman who was unfortunate enough to have this baby, if she throws the baby away, she gets arrested for a homicide. and to me, the one minute before birth and the one minute after birth isn't a whole lot different. >> you understand there are a lot of people with serious convictions, it is. they say that life begins at conception.
>> life does begin at conception. >> it's a moral maze. let's come back and talk about your family. how many grandchildren? >> 18. >> let's come back and talk about your extraordinary family and your wife. oh will you grab us some yoplait? sure. what flavor? mm, one of each. lemon burst, hm, cherry orchard, blackberry harvest...
we've been on a pretty extensive tour, and my wife's been with me. she didn't make it this morning because this was her day i said that she could sleep in, and i provided her breakfast for her this morning because it's our 55th wedding anniversary day. >> ron paul, how he and his wife, carol,celebrated their 55th anniversary last week. congratulations. >> thank you. >> what's the secret to a long-lasting marriage, do you think? >> i think a lot is respect and acceptance of both of our shortcomings.
and i just think that if you have respect for other people and reject the whole idea that you force people, either intimidate -- i don't like it in politics. i don't like it in a personal relationship. you do it my way or else. i think people get into trouble when they try to force themselves on others, and certainly in a good marriage, you shouldn't be using intimidation and force to try to get along. there must be a better way. >> what would she say your shortcomings are? >> oh, she'd probably be pretty generous, you know, and not want to talk about it. >> what do you think they are? if you were being self-critical. >> well, i can get upset. most people don't realize that i do get upset. unfortunately, she gets on the receiving end. you know, even if i get tired in the campaign, you know, if i complain about the campaign, i usually don't go to the campaign manager. i complain to her. but i think that's been part of it. you know, if she has a problem,
if she's not feeling well or she has something, she's allowed to come to me. maybe part of a good marriage is being a sounding board for the other person. >> what do you believe about discipline with children? were you a spanker when they were young? >> no, not really. you know, when i was growing up, and our kids didn't get spanked. there would be a time, you know, you might have to give them a little tap to remind them. >> do you believe parents should still have that right to give their kids a little tap? >> oh, yeah, as long as they're not, you know, practicing severe child abuse, you know. >> but a smack. >> i'll tell you, i would work real hard to promote an understanding that you don't achieve a whole lot -- you don't achieve a whole lot by using force and intimidation, just like in politics. i reject the use of force telling other countries what to do and what to do with your personal behavior. raising kids would be the same way. i can remember growing up, and we had certain real strong beliefs.
and i thought back, i wonder what my parents ever talked to me about behavior, drinking or anything. they never did. it was sort of through osmosis that you know what the standards are. fortunately, we've had five wonderful children. and i think there must have been a little osmosis there because i certainly wasn't a lecturer on exactly what they had to do. >> what were the most important values did your parents instill in you, do you think? you've discussed hard work. what else? >> they had a lot of respect for religious values. i mean, we did go to church routinely. i was raised in the lutheran church. and confirmation in the church was a major event. when we were old enough to decide we wanted to be confirmed in the church, that became a bigger event than any birthday party or any other kind of celebration. that was pretty important. >> and with two things that's happened, in many ways sum up the best of america, in my view. one is the facebook situation where you have a young kid who
has a brilliant idea, and it turns into $100 million idea. and he creates 1,000 millionaires. is that a good thing? i mean, when you look at that, do you see any negatives, or do you think that is what the american dream at its purest is about? >> i think the, and i think you picked a good example, even though i don't know all the details because he provided a service. and he didn't make money as much as he knew something that he anticipated something people might like. he became wealthy because he gave a service. the consumer voted him to have this. now, there are many in society today, so i'm sort of on the side of occupy wall street when they complain about the 1%, but i separate the two. if you made your money because you provided a service and the people bought it and they didn't get subsidies from the government or benefit, say, from an inflationary system and they didn't get bailouts and all these things, that, to me, is entirely different. >> will you ever drop out of
this race, or are you here till the bitter end? >> i'll drop out if somebody gets inaugurated next january. >> nothing will stop you before the convention? >> i'm not thinking in those terms because i'm thinking in campaigning where the next stop is. where do i go this evening and where do i sleep tonight and how i'm going to encourage all the workers to get the vote out. >> hyp hypothetically, would you endorse another candidate? >> it would be a real challenge, but i think people change their minds. some of them change their minds more easily than others. so if they change them favorably and they can convince me, i would certainly be open to that. >> ron paul, best of luck. >> thank you. >> you certainly have a lot of energy, drive, and i can tell you one thing, we will get more reaction on twitter and facebook to this inrview than any interview i've done with any other candidate. that is a given. >>